To shift the focus from social and economic issues to the war on terror and national security, the Republicans, guided by Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, launched a debate on whether to go to war with Iraq. The Bush administration had already decided to oust Saddam Hussein. But the White House staged the congressional debate over the war during the height of the election campaign, rather than before or after it. Rather than remove the issue of war from political partisanship - as Bush's father had done in 1990 by postponing the debate on whether to oust Iraq from Kuwait until after the mid-term elections - the Bush White House sought to use the issue for political ends.
Bush presented the Iraqi threat as imminent and cataclysmic. He and administration officials warned that Saddam would soon have nuclear weapons that he could use against US cities. The administration's warnings either ignored intelligence about Iraq or grossly exaggerated what was known, but they had a dramatic effect. By November, 59 per cent of Americans favoured an invasion of Iraq; only 35 per cent were opposed. Even more thought Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons and had links to al Qaeda. An astonishing 69 per cent believed that it was "very or somewhat likely" that Saddam was involved in the 11th September attacks, despite the fact that the intelligence agencies had failed to find any evidence of it.
The administration also used the anniversary of 11th September to heighten fears of a terrorist attack. The justice department raised the terror alert that week, explaining later that it was justified because of what the FBI had learned of an al Qaeda "sleeper cell" in Lackawanna, New York. Six Yemeni-Americans were arrested, but the administration had no evidence that they had been organising a terrorist plot, and none surfaced over the next year. The six had attended an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in June 2001, but since returning home, had not engaged in plotting or conspiracy or even proselytising.
The administration coupled the terror alerts about sleeper cells with an attack on the Democrats for blocking passage of the homeland security bill. Democrats had initially proposed the new department, and the passage of the measure had actually been held up by Republicans, who insisted that it contain a measure to prevent labour unions from organising department workers, a proposal the Democrats refused to include. The resulting charge of Democratic obstruction, reinforced by terror alerts and exaggerated or false claims about the Iraqi threat, worked to the party's advantage. In the months before the election, Americans became more fearful of attack, and looked to Republicans to protect them. In one October poll, voters who saw terrorism as the biggest election issue favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 72 to 17 per cent margin. ..
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/start.asp?P_Article=12428That's the 4 paragraph limit, so read on, this is fascinating stuff...
This is by the guy who co-wrote the Emerging Democratic Majority.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
